Are most of you free software extremists?

I support free software and only use it everyday.
And always say about freedom and why everybody need this.

Probably I am not. Like RMS and the most here.

I wouldn't call myself an extremist, since I make compromises like using
a gmail account, facebook, twitter, and a news agrigator with restricted
access to print-disabled persons.

Given that source code availability is a necessary condition for some of
the "four freedoms", I consider free software a subset of open-source,
and may let a few uses of the wrong term go without correction.
Similarly, if a person new to this whole scene happens to omit "gnu"
from "gnu/Linux", I won't necessarily attack her; rather, I'll be sure
to use the right language, and hope she follows my example.

I doubt that anyone would self-identify as an "extremist." It's just that we care about software freedom and think that the term "open source" doesn't adequately convey the idea of freedom.

What I gathered from the 'Linux Extremism' article was: throw away your values about freedom so we can innovate; to advance 'Linux'.

The way the writer on that blog, as well as many other 'Linux' users talk about Linus Torvalds being the project leader of 'Linux', It makes me wonder how they can do so much running only a kernel. :-)

I'm probably less hardcore about it than most of the members here. I love the philosophy, and believe it deserves support. As such, Trisquel is a great operating system for me, as it's very polished and relatively easy for a novice to use. However, if Trisquel did not exist, I would probably use Debian or Fedora over one of the other FSF-endorsed distros - I think other factors can outweigh that endorsement. As an organization whose primary goal is the promotion of free software, it makes sense for them to set the bar high. I think the values Debian and Fedora take are also worthy of support though, even if they haven't earned FSF-endorsement. They really do make an effort to promote free software, even though they're a little accommodating to those who wish to use proprietary software.

Also, I've read RMS's article and still don't feel it's a big deal if the GNU/Linux system is referred to as "Linux". In fact, I think quibbling over this point actually hurts the movement. GNU does deserve credit, but I don't think accepting that some people will refer to the same thing as "Linux" is a major concession. Maybe it's because I'm from a math background where plenty of theorems have been misattributed and there is no concern to change this. Is this an injustice? I suppose. The important thing though is that we all understand what is meant, and there aren't any real obstacles to anyone interested in the history from finding out who was actually behind them.

Stallman insists on calling the system GNU/Linux because many 'Linux' users have never heard of GNU or free software.

There was this discussion some time ago. I think the majority of the people here are not extremists (me included).
Extremism begins when people switch of their head and repeat one "holy" idea all the time.
I think there are some people here who are in danger of this.
Repeating all the time "proprietary software is the worst thing on earth, I will never use it or help someone to use it" is bad.
Some things are worse than using proprietary software, but few people here might think only dying is worse and they feel proud of being "really hardcore". This does harm to the whole project.

Insisting on the term "Gnu/Linux" does not, because it's the right expression and you appreciate the idea of free software and the work of the gnu developers if you use it.

My father is using Windows and his few programs maybe for ten years or so; he's a non technical person and I have to accept that I will never be able to make him care about freedom in the software world this way that he will quit his job, for which proprietary software is indeed necessary; and I wouldn't want him to do so.
So yes, I help him whenever he's in trouble with his software without bothering him all the time.
And if someone thinks I don't care about free software or I'm doing harm to my father because of this, then I really don't care about his opinion, because this is what I meant:
I'm facing the situation how it is, and I know it's the best way for me and my father. I would do more harm to him bothering him all the time and doing things he doesn't want to do.
And I really do care about freedom.
Acting otherwise would be extremism in my opinion.

I'm an extremist because:

--I usually agree with RMS, and I'll spend plenty of time and money and effort into protecting and preserving my freedoms, and deny myself many popular functionalities (Facebook for example) in that effort.

I'm a moderate because:

--I didn't throw away my Mac when I got my Linux system. I love Manjaro. I'm not going to run around with a Lemote Yeelong. And, I'm more interested in getting my work done efficiently than I am in getting it done "purely".

I'm something else because:

I don't really care if the Year of the Linux Desktop never comes ... in the same way I didn't really care if my vote for a Green presidential candidate was 'wasted'. Expanding adoption of the best policies, whether they be technical or political, leads inevitably to dilution, compromise, and the money vultures flocking. I'm looking at you, Mark Shuttleworth.

I'll live my life as I see best. Hang out where I can find like-minded souls like ya'll. And continue to studiously ignore the whiners, whether they're calling me an extremist or a bipartisan tool or worse. Their opinion just doesn't count for much, in mine.

I read this years ago and I agree. Free software is about pragmatism.

http://mether.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/the-pragmatic-extremists/

I do really care about freedom in my computing, and I wish I could use free software all the time and help others to do so because the principles, values, privacy and freedom it provides, but sadly "the reality" is other. While I want to try living the "most" free possible by using free os, free software and avoiding this technologies like facebook, google services, skype and others; it turns out to be really hard or impossible in the daily life. When I started using Trisquel I was so happy with it because I got rid of all my Windows stuff and decided to live in freedom, but then, when university entrance came, the "nightmare" started too.

I think you know why, but to give you an example, when we had to do presentations, guess what.. everybody but you use Microsoft Office. At the begining I even offered myself to do the whole presentation (of course with libreoffice) with the information they "would" send me in pptx, but it was pointless since they decided to bring their stuff at the last moment, and said "hey here it is put it all together" and when I opened their stuff they had this "wtf" face, and said "hey it is not like I have done it". I know it is not libreoffice's fault but Microsfot and theirs. And things like that...

So I was literally forced to reinstall Windows, first as a virtual machine and then physically in the disk, because I required some extra resources... lol. Also in my part time job, I can't even think in installing any gnu/linux on those computers we fix, despite I explained them and sometimes to customers too about freedom and some nasty things windows, mac and others applications do to them, it was pointless and almost got fired.

And even in my family, I only convinced to install a distro that wasn't fully free (needed some propietary drivers) in my brother's computer (ok that's not good but I had to start with something), but now that partition is just collecting dust, and I don't doubt he will ask me to remove it sooner or later.

So yeah, I still have Trisquel and use it for my personal data and activities, but I can't scape from non-free software and modern network applications. Finally I have just decided to adapt myself to the situation, if the person needs help with or if I must use a non-free software I'll have to do it. And if you are wondering if I have found someone who cares about freedom and privacy, well I have not, even others (non-free) gnu/linux users. I have explained to them too, but still they just care about x or y thing works on their "linux" and don't even know what gnu is.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2013-06-18 15:07, name at domain wrote:
> The recent post by Magic Banana post about him complaining about the term "open source" over "free
software" for software licensed under the same freedom sharing license
like the GPL really made me think about this recent article:
>
>
http://www.linuxadvocates.com/2013/06/linux-extremism-puts-hurt-on-linux-and.html

What is extreme? Compared to IE, using Firefox on Windows was extreme at
some point.

Compared to Haiti, the way recycling is organized in Canada could be
considered extreme.

Really, what is it?

On 2013-06-18 18:13, name at domain wrote:
> Repeating all the time "proprietary software is the worst thing on earth, I will never use it
or help someone to use it" is bad.

It is the worse thing around. Should I just be quiet about it. No.

> Some things are worse than using proprietary software, but few people here might think only dying
is worse and they feel proud of being "really hardcore". This does harm
to the whole project.

Once again, how if "really hardcore defined"? It's all relative. I don't
feel hardcore at all using Trisquel, it just works. How does that harm
anyone? Quite the opposite, the more we are, the better.

> My father is using Windows and his few programs maybe for ten years or so; he's a non technical person
and I have to accept that I will never be able to make him care about
freedom in the software world this way that he will quit his job, for
which proprietary software is indeed necessary; and I wouldn't want him
to do so.

Not technical? Well, he's using Windows! How is that "non-technical"?
See a pattern here of everything being relative? He's non-technical *to
you*.

Some collagues of mine *have completely left computing* over a matter of
principle, and changed their careers and life.

Hell, one of them is now a *liberator*: http://www.erichamel.com/#Eng

Look that site up in archive.org. That is a personal friend *that used
to be a top network/IT consultant, selling computers and servicing
them*. Some will say he's crazy.

It's a fundamental flaw in the way we live as a modern society: we've
been trained to ignore our instincts and in particular, doubt in our
willingness to change whatever we feel needs change.

> [...]
> I'm facing the situation how it is, and I know it's the best way for
me and my father. I would do more harm to him bothering him all the time
and doing things he doesn't want to do.
> And I really do care about freedom.
> Acting otherwise would be extremism in my opinion.

- From what you describe you haven't had that discussion with him -
you're asking about it where it matters the least, on this forum.

I'd encourage you not to underestimate his tolerance to being bothered
with common senses. I know everytime I haven't, I don't regret it.

F.

- --
Fabián Rodríguez
http://fsf.magicfab.ca

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlHBBhoACgkQfUcTXFrypNWe6wCg4S5Uxg/u9wEdID/jrQIuPVuP
ob0AoOdpyQPsJUIeVwRjPqs8teQ30Kb0
=PMvu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I would say that an extremist goes to the extreme or promoting open
source saying that it does not apply in certain cases. They go from one
extreme to the other. They do no not have a stable position. Hence they
are extremists.

--
Saludos libres,

Quiliro Ordóñez
http://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/quiliro/tour_de_libertad.es.html
VoIP: name at domain o name at domain
Me encuentro en Barquisimeto, Venezuela

"Extremism" describes the position of holding radical views that you push very hard in ways that would be considered immoral. For example, detonating bombs could perhaps be considered "extremist", and protesting funerals of people who are gay can be considered "extremist". I don't think refusing to run proprietary software and talking about your position regarding the ethics of computing can ever be fairly considered to be "extremism". I also wouldn't say that people saying that they hate America or that they hate gay people is "extremist"; radical, sure, but I don't think it crosses the line to "extremism" until they do something immoral in the name of that radical view.

A free software advocate might potentially be a fanatic, I suppose, and maybe that's what was meant, but fanaticism is an irrational enthusiasm, and I'm not aware of anyone whose level of enthusiasm is irrational. Not even Richard Stallman. Fanaticism would be, for example, going into bankruptcy to hunt down the perfect laptop, then insisting on personally compiling every single program you use (including the compiler) yourself, which is a ridiculously huge task.

By the way, I think it's unfortunate that expecting total freedom in computing is considered to be radical by so many people today. In any case, I disagree with them. There are legitimately radical positions; for example, the position that DRM should be illegal is maybe a little radical, and I have considered the radical idea of implementing copyleft into the law. I don't hold any of these radical views myself.

I do have radical views, but they're not directly related to software freedom, and I don't think I behave like an extremist.

I found this link interesting too: http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2013/06/fanboys-in-free-software/

Being extremist particulary in the case of Free Software ain't such a bad thing! Yes, the word extremist might sound intriguing to some people but that might be a good thing. You see, people might be interested to know more about the movement if we continuously strive to make our views heard when we are so outrageously outnumbered. Using Free Software benefits society as whole in many ways, so if I make "extreme efforts" to spread the knowledge is it really a bad thing? Yes, you might have to make a few sacrifices for it, but I think it's worth it. I did quit Facebook, I keep on converting mp3 files to ogg (courtesy OggConvert - Tristan Brindle), never used proprietary software for a long time and probably never will (Games included). The term "Open Source" was coined to evade the philosophical ideas of the Free Software Movement which doesn't help our cause. They say practical convenience over Freedom. So when it comes to practical convenience or Freedom, I rather choose Freedom. Call me a extremist I don't care!

I'm a free software extremist, all right. I'll install nothing but the free stuff. And I think it's incredibly short sighted for anybody to do otherwise. But that's people for you. Proud to be ignorant and lazy as hell. Not that I'm not lazy. But it's not just Joe and Jane Public but most corporations and governments too. Although I have to give it to them, some corps and govs have embraced free software. Usually though without giving any of the benefits to their customers or citizens...

Free software is the only thing that makes sense it a world built of, in and around computers. A hearing aid is a computer you wear or insert into your body, a car a computer you go in on wheels. All money is but 1s and 0s on a screen. Our work, entertainment, many of our memories and private correspondence, but electrons buzzing around.

And thus the question really is, whether we want to take control of our own and collective destinies rather than let the guy behind the curtain do so. I say hell yeah, I'll take my chances, thank you very much.

This is Richard Stallman on the Linux Action Show from May 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA

I understand his argument regarding freedom and control for the individual who buys software. What I found incorrect in his thinking is that people who make paintings, art, books, et cetera should let their works be copied ad infinitum without being paid.

When I bought Windows XP with my first computer in 2002 I did not like the license at all. I read it. My belief was that I bought it therefore I should be able to do whatever I want with it, even if that meant changing the code (though I have no clue about that at all). That being said, I had no intention of duplicating that work from Microsoft and giving it away or selling it.

I believe that people who create something should be able to sell it and earn a living from it. Letting others duplicate that work takes away the income of the creator. Crowd funding doesn't work for everything. Donations don't add up to much at all. Allowing unlimited copying of works of art or programs is not the way to be successful financially.

Free Software is wonderful and should continue to exist. As we know, there are people out there creating it for no money. My favorite thing about Free Software is that I'm in control of it without limitations. For income and business purposes I would like to see a software license that allows the purchaser to modify the programs in any way he wants but restricts duplication for purposes other than personal use. The code would be visible to the buyer. This way people can do what they want with their property that they bought, but they can't interfere with the creator of the programs ability to earn money. This type of license would in no way interfere with or prevent Free Software from continuing to exist.

The creators of software should be able to either allow free duplication or not. I do believe their code should be viewable so that the world can see if the code is safe.

Why do you think Richard Stallman believes everybody should be able to copy and share any type of created work, whether it be books, software, music, or art?

Nobody here is "extremist". In this community, it makes more sense to replace the word "extreme" with "principled". Individuals that protect their freedoms by using free software are helping themselves without hurting anybody in the process.

It's respectful to correct people when they are wrong, and disrespectful not to. Since the term "open source" refers only to freedom 1, it is good to correct people if they seem to be incorrectly using the term to refer to free software which respects all four freedoms.

Yes. Principled. If you view my principles as extreme, so be it. I only use free software. I call it free, not open. I call it GNU/Linux. I don't use Facebook or Gmail, etc etc. Because I value my freedom, my privacy, and my autonomy. I don't hate anyone who doesn't share my values. I work very hard to promote my values and show why I feel they are correct.

That being said, Dietrich Schmitz is an extremist in my opinion. I don't know why he insists on calling himself a "Linux" advocate, when he is an Android extremist. He promotes Google and Android like I promote GNU and FSF. I've argued with him before. He feels that Debian is a "speed bump" to innovation. What does he cite as being better? Android and ChromeOS.

(http://www.linuxadvocates.com/2013/03/debian-speedbump-on-road-to-innovation.html#comment-848097709)

For the record, I was not "complaining about the term "open source" over "free software" for software licensed under the same freedom sharing license". I was complaining about Jesse Smith disrespecting the fundamental values behind the Trisquel project (in one word: "freedom") by introducing his review of Trisquel with a glorification of the "open source" movement and the secondary practical advantages it focuses on. "Open source" (a term coined to precisely avoid talking about freedoms) is not at all what Trisquel stands for.

Of course I am. My only non-free stuff consist on a bunch of non-free (and legal) Spectrum games on .tap format because their source code is pretty lost .

When people have a problem with their computer, I tell them they can change the operating system and the different advantages (of Trisquel). I explain them what a free software is.

If they agree, I install Trisquel instead of Windows. I explain them how it works (Gnome, Synaptic) and their usual free softwares : LibreOffice, or how to download YouTube vidoes.

If I don't know the answer, I ask the question here.

From now I will suggest them ThinkPenguin.

For me an "extremist" is a label people put on a other group of people because it looks extreme to them. For people who use Windows or something like that using GNU/Linux can be an "extremist". For people who use Mint, Arch, Ubuntu and other may Trisquel look extremist. For me Gentoo is leaning to extremist because compiling all software from source.

For me thinking of going for Trisquel has a couple or reasons:
* I don't want a operating system with known back doors and "evil people" running these companies. (Don't want to support "evil".)
* Support projects that aims for freedom. Same as looking at two products that do what I want. How have they been produced, what company have made them. (Support people/companies with good intentions.)
* I have been talking about freedom and free software for some time, but not running a free operating system. ("Walk the talk")
* My computing have over the years been less and less. From playing games, producing things to now more or less only read, view video clips, listen to music and some mail. For that I have no need to proprietary software.

For me this don't look extreme.

EDIT.
Adding to list.
* Free software is for me a representation of freedom. In todays world where freedom is being outlawed (speech, movement, anonymity and more) supporting free software is for me supporting freedom in general.
* Free software is honesty. "We have coded this. Look at what we have created. Change it, give us suggestions, make a fork of it (That we can take ideas from), fix bugs". Again, honesty is something that is being eradicated very fast in todays world. I like honesty and for my self I feel a lot better when being honest to me and others. Honesty isn't stealing, lying, ripping people off, talking behind other backs or other destructive behaviour. Example that one person often use or do to push other people down or steal from them so that person can have more stuff of for the moment have a "good feeling peak", by creating a bad situation for others.

Is this extremist thoughts?

No, I'm not an extremist.

I do believe that the OS should be free and fully open source. There should be no restriction on hardware's ability to function based on ability to pay or willingness to put up with obfuscated code.
I strongly believe that no one should be excluded from the internet or from accessing and interacting with information, based on the content of their bank account, or on their particular racial, political, sexual or religious persuasion.

However, I also believe that people or groups of people who spend a great deal of time and energy creating software for entertainment or specialist creative purposes, have a right to protect their work from being copied by cheapskates and freetards who wish only to bask in another's glory or to find a quick way to profit from another man's work. I also do not believe that people who spend time and energy creating games are "trying to rob me of my freedom". They're trying to earn a living and that living would be significantly compromised by giving away the fruits of their labours.

The people trying to rob me of my freedom are those who will not allow certain media types to be played on their OS, who demand the right to observe what I install on my pc and what I do with it or who force upgrades on me by making new versions of software unavoidable by market manipulation.
So I draw a distinction between the tools to produce fruit and the fruit thus produced.
The only reason that anyone can make a spade is because spades date back to a time before patents were thought up. If patents predated spades then only 1 company would be making spades, everyone else would either be making them under licence and paying for the privilege or would be prosecuted for making spades. A more absurd situation would be hard to imagine.
Unfortunately, the comparison collapses as no meaningful parallel exists between the real world and software. We do not possess the ability to press a button and echieve an instant copy of a real world item. Even if 3D printers become ubiquitous the parallel fails as physical resources must be consumed to produce the end result. Not so with digital items.
So, should any human be told "you do not have the right to edit text or read information unless you first pay me some money"? Absolutely not. Such activities are so intrinsic to human society that to restrict access to them is, arguably, an immoral act.
Should the same human be told "you do not have the right to play the game I spent several thousand hours producing without first paying me some money? Yes, I think he should.

These are, quite possibly, half formed ideas and I cheerfully concede that there may be aspects I haven't considered or am just not aware of.
So, disagree if you need to, but no executions for heresy please.